People (S.C.Z. Judgment 22 of 1982) [1982] ZMSC 11 (12 July 1982)
The appellate court's enhancement of the sentence was ultra vires as it exceeded the sentencing powers of the trial court; only the sentence permissible to the trial court could be imposed on appeal.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1982] ZMSC 11
- Parties
- Respondent: The People; Appellant: (Appellants not named in extract)
- Court
- Supreme Court of Zambia
- Jurisdiction
- Zambia
- Case Number
- S.C.Z. Judgment 22 of 1982
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Second Appeal (supreme Court)
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed; enhanced sentence set aside; original sentence re-imposed.
- Legal Topics
- Appellate Powers, Sentencing, Jurisdiction of Appellate Court
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
The People
Respondent
(Appellants not named in extract)
Appellant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Second Appeal (supreme Court)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether an appellate court can impose a sentence in excess of the powers of the trial court
Ratio Decidendi
The appellate court's enhancement of the sentence was ultra vires as it exceeded the sentencing powers of the trial court; only the sentence permissible to the trial court could be imposed on appeal.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed; enhanced sentence set aside; original sentence re-imposed.
Orders
- The appellate court's sentence of five years' imprisonment with hard labour is set aside.
- The original sentence of three years' imprisonment with hard labour is re-imposed for both appellants.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
THE PEOPLE (1982) Z. R. 29 (S. C.) C. J., SUPREME SILUNGWE, 13TH (S. C. Z. JUDGMENT NO. 22 OF 1982) APPEAL NO s.18 OF 1982 AND 45 OF 1981 p30 GARDNER, AND J JULY, BWEUPE, AG COURT . J. S. Flynote Criminal law and procedure - Appeal - Power of appellate court to impose sentence which is in excess of the powers of the trial court - Whether available. Sentence - Appeal - Power of appellate court to impose sentence which is in excess of the power of the trial court - Whether possible. Headnote The appellants pleaded guilty to breaking into Mukobeko offices and stealing therefrom. They were sentenced to three year's imprisonment with hard labour by the trial court. On appeal the court increased the sentence to five years. They appealed further. Held: (i) An appellate court cannot enhance the sentence imposed by the trial court, beyond the powers of the latter, it can only impose the sentence that the trial court could have imposed. N. L. Patel Senior Legal Aid Counsel C. K. Chanda State Advocate, For the appellants: For the respondent: ____________________________________ Judgment SILUNGWE, C. J.: delivered the judgment of the court. Both appellants pleaded guilty to breaking into Mukobeko offices and stealing therefrom, among other items, a revolver and six rounds of ammunition, on the 29th June, 1979. Both were first offenders and were each sentenced to the Subordinate Court of the second class to a term of years. imprisonment labour three with hard for On appeal to the High Court against their respective sentences, these were increased to five years each. Evidently, the enhancement of these sentences was ultra vires the powers of the trial court which, under s. 7 (iv) of the Penal Code, could not have imposed a sentence in excess of three years. An appellate court can only impose a sentence that the trial court could have imposed. It has no power to impose any greater sentence. In the circumstances, the appellate court's sentence was invalid and, as such, it is set aside; in its place we reimpose the original sentence of three years imprisonment with hard labour. In the case of the first appellant, this sentence consecutive to any sentence he may now be serving, but the second appellant's takes effect from 23rd January, 1980. Original sentence re-imposed VALSAMOS KOUFOU v